Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha, Manmad V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3, Malegaon

ITA 1612/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6621 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND BHASKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV MUTHA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 139(1); 148

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS.1609 TO 1614/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 SMT. RUPALI SANJAY BEDMUTHA, PROP. : M/S. P.B. ENTERPRISES, MANKE COMPOUND, S.P. ROAD, MANMAD 423 104. PAN : AGVPB6729Q. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MALEGAON. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJEEV MUTHA. REVENUE BY : SHRI ANAND BHASKAR. / ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 1, NASHIK DATE D 05.04.2017 UNDER SECTIONS 271(1)(B) AND 271F OF THE ACT, FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECOR D. 2. EXCEPT IN ITA NO.1612/PUN/2017 IN ALL THE REMAINING FIVE APPEALS, THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR RS.10,000/-. THAT FOR THE OTHER APPEAL I.E., I.T.A.NO.1612/PUN/2017, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH T HE CONFIRMATION / DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 .09. 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .0 9 .2020 2 OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271F OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HEREIN AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND THE ISSUES ARE ALSO SIMILAR. THEREFORE, A LL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS REGARDING THE IMPOSITION O F PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN BUILDING MATERIAL, STEEL BINDING WORK E TC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B ) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED / LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID NOTICE COULD NOT BE COMPLIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM ACUTE DEPRESSION AND WAS IN PSYCHOSOMATIC C ONDITION. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE CONTINUOUS MEDICAL TREATMENT AN D THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DR. MANOJ DASH PUTE IN SUPPORT OF HER PROBLEM BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER . THESE WERE NOT FOUND SUFFICIENT REASON BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE IDENTIC AL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ITA 3 NO.1608/PUN/2017, ON THIS VERY ISSUE, THE PUNE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL THESE APP EALS RELATING TO 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, THE FINDINGS FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE (SUPRA) MAY BE FOLLOWED AND RELIEF PROVIDED THEREIN MAY ALSO BE GIVEN IN THESE APPEALS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE P LACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE SUB-ORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS JUSTIFIED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THAT ON THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (SUPRA), WE HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS : 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND ANALYZED T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. THIS IS A CASE WHERE PE NALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.10,000/- FOR NO N-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT S ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. THEREAFTER, INFORMATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARA SHTRA AND AFTER WHICH HE HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. AGAIN THERE WAS NON-COMPLIA NCE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT STATING THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE DEMONSTRATED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR NONATTENDANCE ON THE GIVEN DATE AS PER THE SAID NOT ICE. THE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN WE PERUSE THE PENALTY ORDER AT PARA 5 IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A MEDICAL CE RTIFICATE FROM DR. MAJOJ DASHPUTE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER HIS TR EATMENT FOR DEPRESSION WITH ANXIETY DISORDER FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER STILL LEVIED THE PENALTY SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT REAS ON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW HAS ABSOLUTELY OVERLOOKED THE FACTS ON RECORD WHICH ARE GENUINE. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANYTHING AGAINST THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING HIS I LL-HEALTH. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMP OSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 4 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND WE THEREFORE, DELETE THE P ENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CA SE. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO COULD NOT BRING OUT ANY EVIDENCE NOR COULD ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS COMPARED TO THES E APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. NOR HE COULD PLACE ANY DECISION OF T HE HIGHER FORUM ON THIS ISSUE IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO DEVIATE FROM OUR OWN VIEW WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION FO R ALL THESE APPEALS REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THESE ARE NOT FIT CASES FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND THEREFORE WE DELETE THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., IN ITA NO.1609 TO 1611/PUN/2017, ITA NO.1613/PUN/2017 AND ITA NO.1614/PUN/2017 WITHOUT GOI NG INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1609 TO 1611/PUN/ 2017, ITA NO.1613/PUN/2017 AND ITA NO.1614/PUN/2017 ARE ALLOWE D. 8. REGARDING ITA NO.1612/PUN/2017, THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED NOTICE U/S 271F OF THE ACT DT.12.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 FOR NON- FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE THAT SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION AND WAS UNDER THE TREATMENT OF DR. MANOJ DASHPUTE SINCE 2010 AND IN SUPPORT OF HER MEDICAL CONDITIO N, MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND PRESCRIPTIONS WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEPA RTMENT AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ILL-HEALTH, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS FOR FILING RETURN COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT IN 5 THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CONCERNING PEN AL PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY SEC.139(1) READ WITH SEC.271F OF THE ACT, THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REASONABLENESS HAS ALWAYS TO BE CONSIDERED. HERE IS THE CASE, WHERE THE GENUINETY OF THE PROBLEM FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT SINCE THE FACTS ON RECO RD ARE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION, MEDICAL ILLNESS AND W AS UNDER THE TREATMENT OF A DOCTOR. THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR RESPECT IVE ORDERS HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE WHEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271F OF THE ACT ARE SO STRINGENT THAT WORD BY WORD, IF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE PENALTY WILL BE LEVIED IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY PRACTICAL OR REASONABLE SITUATIONS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE HELD THE INCOME TAX ACT TO BE A WELFARE LEGISLATION, MEANING THEREBY THAT T HE TAX-PAYER PRACTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE Q UASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WHILE UNDERTAKING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND P ENAL PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE, IN THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S 271F OF THE ACT FOR NON-FILING OF RETURN BUT THE REVENUE HAS FA ILED TO CONDUCT ANY SPECIFIC ENQUIRY AS REGARDS THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSE SSEE WHETHER THEY ARE CORRECT OR NOT. THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND THIS AS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271F O F THE ACT. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271F OF THE ACT FROM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1612/PUN/2017 IS ALLOWED. 6 9. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E I.E., ITA NOS.1609/PUN/2017 TO ITA NO.1614/PUN/2017 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( R. S. SYAL ) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. YAMINI 2 3456 764 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A) 1, NASHIK. PR.CIT-1, NASHIK. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.